Case T-112/25: Action brought on 15 February 2025 – Inescop v Commission
Date: 2025-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: claim, debt, eligibility criteria, equal treatment, fundamental rights, language, limitation of legal proceedings, project funding








C_202501897EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1897


7.4.2025






Action brought on 15 February 2025 – Inescop v Commission


(Case T-112/25)

(C/2025/1897)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Asociación de investigación para la industria del calzado y conexas (Inescop) (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: C. Morales Ruiz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


principally, annul Commission Decision of 17 December 2024 reporting the offsetting of debts and debit note (No 3242410121) in respect of the XLLence4leatherAfric project and declare that the offset debt does not exist because the four-year limitation period has expired for any proceedings brought by the Commission against Inescop, pursuant to Regulation No 2988/95;










—


in the alternative, in the event that the principal claim is not upheld, annul the contested decision and declare that the offset debt does not exist because the five-year limitation period has expired for any proceedings brought by the Commission against Inescop, pursuant to the EU Financial Regulations of 2002 and 2012;










—


in the further alternative, in the event that the above claims are not upheld on the ground that the Commission is bringing administrative proceedings, annul the contested decision and declare that the debt does not exist because the limitation period has expired for any proceedings brought by the Commission against Inescop, irrespective of the application of Regulation No 2988/95 or the EU Financial Regulations to the Grant Agreements.










—


in the further alternative, in the event that the above claims are not upheld on the ground that the Commission is bringing administrative proceedings in issuing the recovery order, (i) annul the contested decision and declare that the debt does not exist on account of the breach of Inescop’s fundamental rights, ordering, where appropriate, the initiation of new proceedings guaranteeing Inescop’s legally recognised linguistic rights, and (ii) consequently, provide Inescop with a copy in Spanish of each and every one of the communications, decisions, resolutions and reports, including those of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), in order to be able to defend itself effectively in the adversarial proceedings, the decision having been adopted in the exercise of administrative powers that are foreign to the contractual relationship of the Grant Agreements.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the offset claim cannot be recovered, pursuant to, (i) the EU decisions in relation to FP7 and (ii) Council Regulation No 2988/95 (1) (EC, EURATOM) of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the debt cannot be recovered, pursuant to, (i) the Grant Agreements and (ii) contract law: the EU Financial Regulations, applicable ratione temporis.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that, in the event that the Commission has brought administrative proceedings in determining the debt which is offset, its right to bring those proceedings against Inescop is also time-barred, pursuant to Regulation No 2988/95 and the Financial Regulation of 2012.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision grants the offsetting of a debt which cannot be recovered because the debt has been determined in breach of the Grant Agreements in relation to the correct interpretation of Article 4 thereof and of the principal of contractual good faith and equality between the parties.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the offset debt cannot be recovered because it was determined in breach of the fundamental right to address the Commission in one of the languages of the Treaties and to obtain a response in that same language.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the requirements for offsetting because the debt is not certain.






(1)  
            OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1897/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)